The Centre for the Study of Research Training and Impact (SORTI) is focused on understanding and developing research and higher order problem solving skills, and the impact of research training and research outcomes in a wide variety of contexts.

About us

The Centre for the
Study of Research Training and Impact (SORTI) is focused on understanding and
developing research and higher order problem solving skills, and the impact of
research training and research outcomes in a wide variety of contexts.

SORTI was established out of the concern evident at national and international levels about the quality and impact of research and research training. The continued development of the Centre has also responded to the escalating interest in higher and professional education; the acquisition, use, settings;
and the acceleration of the use of information technologies in related contexts.

To capture these changes we developed an overarching program framework: Research Training and Transformational Knowledge (RTTK) that
encompasses:

Research Training

Higher Education

Professional Learning

Innovation and Entrepreneurship

New Technologies in Learning

Epistemology and Cognition

Transformational Leadership

SORTI activities are directed toward the understanding and development of research and higher order problem solving skills, the impact of research training and knowledge use, professional development and pathways to professions, and e-learning in a wide variety of contexts.

SORTI brings together researchers from The University of Newcastle and national and international academics in the fields of Education, Science and IT, Psychology, Social and Cultural Studies, Business and Law, Evaluation and Measurement, Policy Studies, Curriculum, History, Philosophy, Creative
Arts, Music, Design, Mathematics, Medicine, Engineering and the Built Environment, Environmental Studies, Research Management, and University Administration.

Research and Publication Highlights

The
focus and substance of formative comment provided by PhD examinersHolbrook, Bourke, Fairbairn and Lovat build on
previous research on the examination of Australian PhD theses for this paper in Studies in Higher Education.
Detailed examination of the formative text of
Science and Education examiner reports identified nine categories of formative
comment directed at three groupings of weaknesses or flaws: 'fundamentals', 'project' and 'argument'. While all were
related to a less favourable recommendation, there were discipline differences.
There was significantly more
comment in Science pertaining to the data and analysis and the fundamentals of
presentation while in Education there was more emphasis on improving argument.

Examiner
reference to theory in PhD thesesIn
this 2015 paper, Holbrook, Bourke and Fairbairn show that reference to theory
in PhD examination reports is not the overriding focus of examiners that some
candidates might imagine it to be. While the analysis identified six specific
categories of comment pertaining to theory, a fusion of most or all the
categories in one thesis was rare and always positive. Based on these
categories, the paper provides clarity in what candidates need to attend to
with respect to theory. Read
more about this research inInnovations in Education
and Teaching International.

PhD
candidate expectations: Exploring mismatch with experienceAs
part of a broader study, the data for this paper by Holbrook, Shaw, Scevak, Bourke, Cantwell and Budd published
in International
Journal of Doctoral Studies, were drawn from interviews
with PhD candidates at Australian universities. The categories of initial
expectations identified coalesced into three dimensions: the doctoral 'Task',
the 'University', and 'Personal' factors. Where mismatch was found between expectations and subsequent experience, it was primarily in relation to
the 'Task'. Negative mismatch was consistently related to candidate
satisfaction with supervision, department/university provision, and their own
preparation for the degree. To minimise the impact of such mismatches, the
authors argue that it is important for university induction programs to be more
explicit about the task and the norms of experience.